General Atomics believes so, and they are promoting their Gambit 5 drone as the answer to enhancing the capabilities of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

At the Farnborough International Airshow, the company revealed concepts for carrier-based operations with their Gambit UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) series, suggesting that these advanced drones could soon be a key component of the Royal Navy’s arsenal.

Gambit 5, a carrier-capable variant of their UCAV series, is specifically designed for launch and recovery operations from aircraft carriers. This concept, say the firm, leverages General Atomics’ extensive experience in UCAV operations.

The company has a long history of developing and flying UCAVs, such as the MQ-20 Avenger, and believes that Gambit 5 could be a game-changer for many countries, including the UK.

The introduction of Gambit 5 to the Royal Navy’s QEC carriers would mark a significant upgrade in their operational capabilities. The drone would be able to perform a variety of missions, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and potential combat roles.

This flexibility could provide the Royal Navy with a broader range of options in both peacetime and combat scenarios. Should the UK decide to use MQ-9B drones at sea alongside their F-35Bs, Gambit 5 would represent a pretty capable complement to the existing fleet, enhancing the carriers’ overall mission capability.

Britain ‘assessing options’ to increase air wing of carriers

This concept builds on previous discussions and plans to enhance the carriers’ capabilities. In May of last year, under the previous government, parliamentary discussions were held about retrofitting the carriers with catapults, additional angled decks, and arresting wires to accommodate new types of aircraft.

These enhancements were aimed at increasing the operational flexibility and combat mass of the carriers.

Project Ark Royal – Plans for angled decks and drones

The Royal Navy has already demonstrated its commitment to integrating advanced uncrewed systems with successful trials of the Mojave drone last year.

Rear Admiral James Parkin, Royal Navy Director Develop, emphasized the significance of this trial, stating, “The Mojave trial is a European first – the first time that a Remotely Piloted Air System of this size has operated to and from an aircraft carrier outside of the United States.”

Large ‘Mojave’ drone flies from British aircraft carrier

General Atomics’ spokesman, C. Mark Brinkley, discussed the collaborative nature of this development.

“We’ve been thinking of this as a new concept we’re calling Gambit 5, designed for carrier launch and recovery, but weapons delivery need not be a primary requirement. It could be ISR-focused, like Gambit 1, or even some kind of hybrid,” Brinkley explained.

He also highlighted the potential for these drones to complement existing systems and provide new capabilities for the Royal Navy and noted the extensive research and development that has gone into this project.

“Our work with carrier-based UCAV operations is pretty extensive, going back to UCLASS and other projects. We’ve been flying our MQ-20 Avenger for 15 years across more than 37,000 flight hours. We have great experience with relative navigation, autonomy, and other systems required for shipboard operations.”

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

158 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_837582)
1 month ago

Some form of AWACS drone should surely be the priority

DP
DP (@guest_837593)
1 month ago

I’d agree Levi. That and an air-to-air refueller, to extend the range of the F-35B.

Baker
Baker (@guest_837597)
1 month ago
Reply to  DP

Air to air refueling from a relatively small drone ? think about it.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_837630)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

The Americans did the MQ-25 for carriers, so it can work.

Baker
Baker (@guest_837640)
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve R

I said “Small drone”. The MQ-25 has a 75 ft wing span and a 50 ft Long Body. Both are way too big for a proposed QE C&T conversion.
Have a look and you’ll see why I said it.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_837730)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

As the proposed upgrade to the carriers is supposed to be capable of launch full-size fighter , I would have thought an MQ-25 will not be a problem.

DP
DP (@guest_837632)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

Levi and myself were talking about priorities Baker, not suggesting Gambit 5 is capable of AAR, or carrying an AWACS RADAR system for that matter. I’d imagine AAR, like ship-borne AWACS, is a high priority requirement right now. Can Gambit 5, or one of it’s variations achieve this? I have no idea, but I’d be putting AWACS first, AAR 2nd and fleshing out the combat aircraft fleet a close 3rd. Granted there are more options developing right now for 3rd in the market place compared to 1st and 2nd but Crowsnest is, as I understand it ‘limited’, and long-range anti… Read more »

Baker
Baker (@guest_837644)
1 month ago
Reply to  DP

Well that was very unclear and as this article is about the gambit 5 i could only assume you thought it was a suitable candidate for AAR. Sorry I was mis-understanding your comment.
Having said that, what do you suggest would be suitable to be AAR capable and being able to be launched and recovered by the QE class ?

John Pattullo
John Pattullo (@guest_837656)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

I’d say something based on the osprey or similar would be the best option

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_837669)
1 month ago
Reply to  John Pattullo

Probably for AAR and AEW, too.

Baker
Baker (@guest_837672)
1 month ago
Reply to  John Pattullo

Osprey will never happen, no other similar options are even being offered.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_838217)
1 month ago
Reply to  John Pattullo

Errr… No.
Those massive rotating props would seriously mess up any radar picture through reflection of the transmitted radar signal and any sidelobes you didn’t supress. You would be lucky if you could achieve a 180deg picture and again lookdown capability would be compromised by the props.

Osprey of late has a nasty habit of deciding it no longer wants to fly and so decides to land in a catastrophic manner killing all on board.
The RN, RAF and anyone else in the UK who wanted it dodged a bullet

DRS
DRS (@guest_839344)
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Resurrect Fairey Rotodyne?

DP
DP (@guest_837710)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

The thread I was contributing to gave my original comment context I suppose. On the main point, though, the only options I’m aware of that are, loosely speaking, ‘available’ are the MQ-25 and the F-18 (with buddy system) but neither would work with the QE class in its current form, obviously. QEs would need considerable modification under Project Ark Royal. The solution probably hasn’t manifested itself yet in the public domain, part of that might be down to what market is out there for such a system? Who would need a system like this for it to generate a meaningful… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_837741)
1 month ago
Reply to  DP

Even the US is planning for the Ospreys eventual demise they stick with it because there is no viable alternative as things stand but it’s not a platform they enthusiastically endorse just the capabilities once obtained make it vital to them despite its ongoing issues. We don’t need it in the way they do though if it were a reliable safe platform it would have its benefits, but fact is the US, had they anticipated what they have learned the hard way now, would never have persisted with its development and very likely will replace it with something rather less… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_837798)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

The thing is tilting the engine is seductive as you get rid of complex linkages.

So on paper the frame is simplified.

In practice you create a nightmare.

Jon
Jon (@guest_837856)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

The Osprey VARS system was cancelled as it simply didn’t carry enough fuel to be useful. The MQ-25 is capable of carrying up to 6,800kg of fuel. By comparison, the A330 Voyager has a maximum fuel capacity of 111,000 kg without the use of additional fuel tanks, and we already have those.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_837753)
1 month ago
Reply to  DP

I wonder if an F35 could work with a buddy system?
Use it in Beast mode with every pylon and I ternal bays filled with fuel tanks plus a refuelling hose and send them out to refuel the others of its flight en route
Obviously a waste of a useful platform but could allow strikes beyond the current range limitations of the B model.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_837765)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Or equip an AV-8 HarrierII to do so, had we kept a handful.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_837799)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

USN hasn’t – nobody else has the R&D dollars or control to do it so that won’t happen. It would be an extortionately expensive way to refuel.

Jim
Jim (@guest_837819)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

The buddy system on F18 is not a combat enabler, it’s too small, it’s purely there to mitigate the risk of CATOBAR landing.

The F35B has no need for such a system due to its ability to land vertically. It’s not missing any wires.

It’s a myth that US carriers have organic AAR capabilities, they really don’t and the buddy system has burned a number of F18’s with higher operating tempo required. The S3 Viking could be seen as a true AAR tanker but that’s has been gone for a long time.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_837857)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Evening SB, hopefully the under wing fuel tanks for the F35Bs might also happen soon soon too plus a few more planes turn up in UK.

DRS
DRS (@guest_839336)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

Re build a Fairy Rotodyne? Should be able to do all manner of things including refuel, AWACS, small troop insertions etc. Sure could be made to fit carriers. Question what after and how you can continue production maintenance, but I can see it’s uses elsewhere too (North Sea transport, wind turbines building snd maintenance etc etc and we can keep a 1 per year slow production rate until we get orders for more. Fantasy fleets / craft? Perhaps but solves lots of problems.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_837714)
1 month ago

The issue is, energy generation both for the long range radar, and avionics processing. The energy requirements are in the 10KWs’.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_837801)
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Energy generation and cooing are both big issues with high power radars.

DRS
DRS (@guest_839330)
1 month ago

How much effort would be to redevelop Fairey Rotodyne. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne Seems can carry a few tons of gear, radar problems much simpler to solve for 360 with AESA panels you get now. Lots of space for carrier onboard delivery (f35 engine) and plenty of space for radar operator crew insertion etc. carries have plenty of space and would perhaps have folding bits to make it easier to store. ??? I know there is no money for anything these days but we already have the sewing and tech from prior development and hopefully somewhere original schematics etc. never know why we… Read more »

Jim
Jim (@guest_837583)
1 month ago

I can see the QE class becoming a very versatile platform with the addition of Gambit and MQ9. It looks like BAE has no interest in drones.

branaboy
branaboy (@guest_837591)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

BAE Systems have flown and tested a number of drones that at least equivalent to the General Atomic offerings, namely the Mantis and Taranis drones both flown about a decade ago. With catapult and arrester gear modifications to the carriers, I am certain these two BAE offerings would work just as well from the carriers as the General Atomic offerings in whatever role they are deployed for.

Jim
Jim (@guest_837610)
1 month ago
Reply to  branaboy

BAE seems pretty happy to do government funded tech demonstrators but has done virtually nothing since Taranis and shown no interest in rolling anything out beyond that. Couple of models made an appearance when talking about LANCA and that was it.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_837648)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Is that because HMG has barely put any money into defence, though?

They won’t roll out fancy new drone aircraft if it’s unlikely to result in any purchases. If HMG puts more money into defence after this review* and MoD then asks for drones, I think BAE will rapidly develop more.

*Big IF, I know.

Dern
Dern (@guest_837739)
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve R

The thing is BAE is a major multinational defence contractor, HMG is not even their primary client anymore.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_837758)
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve R

That’s the point they have produced various protest and concepts but without MoD commitment what more can they do. They are doing stuff in the States and even Australia but they can’t be expected to keep producing flying prototypes endlessly and their last was flying a few years back and may still be for all we know but until they need to learn something specifically new in real time over computer sims or get a Govt contract I doubt we will see the next varient fly.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_837754)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Magma

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_837752)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Magma was still flying circa 2021, then there is Concept 1 and 2 from the last Farnborough or perhaps Paris and even Strix they are developing in Australia. Still devote a lot of space on their website to un piloted research though little to specific actual drones themselves I note. I think though until a specific requirement is launched by the MoD I guess it’s difficult to create more specific Prototypes.

Jim
Jim (@guest_837821)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Exactly, where are concept 1 and 2 now? Strix is an interesting CGI presensation where is it now?

Jon
Jon (@guest_837762)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I was at Farnborough today and had a chat with a guy on the GA stand. MQ-9B STOL is still some years away. The AEW PODs are too far down the line to be discussable in public. Gambit 5 wasn’t even mentioned and the pretty pictures of PWLS with a single full EMS catapult looked like a pipe-dream. I also spent a long time in the BAE building. They have a lot of drones in offing. Strix was getting considerable airplay, and there was a small single rotor vehicle (plus tail) in the 50kg class that had a rather expensive… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_837802)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

The cost and time of Project Ark Royal would be huge.

You would be better off buying loads more F35B for the same £££££ and some AAR drones with a side (beside ski jump) catapult and main deck arrestor system.

Jim
Jim (@guest_837822)
1 month ago

Why do you think installing a mid sized EM catapult and adding some arrestor wires would be a massive cost?

Jon
Jon (@guest_837834)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I think a couple of mid-payload catapults might be doable. For manned fighters it’s the operations cost that’s the real killer. I don’t know how many crew would be required to operate drone-only catapults, but that should be a lot cheaper. Is it worth it? I doubt it.

However, GA aren’t talking about mid-payload catapults. They are talking about a full-blown EMALS catapult (which they would as it’s their system) with restricted length. And just one per carrier, making it an expensive single point of failure.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_837843)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Anything in Defence is expensive specially in UK

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_837842)
1 month ago

Reasonably idea 🤔

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_837863)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

“ MQ-9B STOL is still some years away. The AEW PODs are too far down the line to be discussable in public”

I don’t know where the 10’skW of power would come from on a mid payload drone??

Passive radar with a small surface emitter/receiver or an active radar that picks up big things maybe……but a useful radar against skimmers etc?

The only way it is useful is if you fly them away from the carrier so that the range to target is reduced to allow for the lower power levels?

Jon
Jon (@guest_837896)
1 month ago

Power probably isn’t the issue. One of the new APUs from Rolls Royce develops between 500kW – 1.2MW, weighs 200kg-250kg and is small enough to build into the body of a Protector-sized drone, leaving enough room for communications and self protection systems. Getting a large enough antenna for an S-band radar also might be just about possible. The dorsal radar on the Embraer P600 AEW&C is about 5m long, and pods that length might just be doable for an 11.5m drone. These would be unwieldly rather than too heavy. Whether all that could take off from a carrier with less… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_837929)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

“ 200kg-250kg” plus fuel which is starting to be quite a lot.

I don’t think taking off from a QEC’s, quite long, flight deck is the issue: particularly if you can use the ski jump as intended to provide the rotation.

The issue is more landing something that big with that large a wingspan with £1.6Bn of F35B parked topside. A lot of parking slots can’t be used.

Jon
Jon (@guest_838051)
1 month ago

I don’t think the ramp can be used for the MQ-9B.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_838060)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

I’d not be so sure as the takeoff speed isn’t that high so the under-cart stresses won’t be crazy.

The stresses would be a lot lower than a catapult assisted take off anyway.

The only issue is under cart length and clearances.

BTW the clearance onto the ramp isn’t the issue it is often made out to be either.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_838219)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

There will be a cost analysis.
F35s are going to peak at less than 90 airframes?
Uk said it would buy 138.
Not buying those 40 “saves” 4 bil or more.

On someone’s spreadsheet they will look at that and decide to spend it somewhere else instead. Some simple electric catapults and drones would be doable and have change left for deep fires to keep the army happy. Heck keep the RAF happy and get 2 E7s…we have the radars already!

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_837954)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

BAE’s lack of interest in drones is surprising. I think to get the necessary Umph for all the kit you will need, you are going to need a twin engine turboprop. Something like a Sea Hornet! Anyone up for that? It also makes sense for refuelling, AEW and a useful range load carrying etc.

John
John (@guest_837587)
1 month ago

Dreams are always nice. What is needed in mass. Now. As usual stuff that works already will be side lined for the “futuristic”. Better opting for something like Mojave now to flesh out the gin palaces ( before they break down again ).

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_837589)
1 month ago

It’s absolutely the direction of travel.

We are unlikely to ever get more than three operational Squdrons of F35B ( two if tranche 2 is cancelled), so ucav of various types will be needed to ensure combat mass.

UCAV
AEW
AAR
COD

Project Ark Royal absolutely needs to be fully implemented on refit, we need angled decks, cats and traps for safe launch recovery of the widest choice of drones.

An angled deck would also potentially allow safe higher speed RVL approaches by F35B…

andy reeves
andy reeves (@guest_837771)
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

is there any subject less boring than bloody drones?

Baker
Baker (@guest_837830)
1 month ago
Reply to  andy reeves

Yes, driverless electric cars.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_837963)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

agreed

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_837592)
1 month ago

Marketing piece.
Agreed, if it was possible, AEW should be up there.

Coll
Coll (@guest_837594)
1 month ago

It would also be nice to have a ship like an LHD size. The kind of deck that has enough space for catapult from the drones and a very shallow-angled deck for drones but can launch a few F-35Bs. A Majestic class shallow-style deck. Or how about we didn’t sell an invisible class and convert that. Oh, well.

Baker
Baker (@guest_837598)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

Trouble with the “Invisible class” was that we never knew where they were. 😁

andy reeves
andy reeves (@guest_837773)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

nor did they!

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_837602)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

Invincible class were knackered

Coll
Coll (@guest_837614)
1 month ago
Reply to  Hugo

True. Maybe I just wanted it to stay in service. Maybe converting/upgrading the HMS Ocean can be done. Even as a stop effort. We were even testing oh home made EMAL before canning it. I can’t remember where the article was, but it was in 2014.

Baker
Baker (@guest_837646)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

Ocean was even more knackered. We even had to spend Millions to get shot.

andy reeves
andy reeves (@guest_837775)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

ocean was sold by utter fools, with no ideas of the problems their ruinous policies were making.

Coll
Coll (@guest_837715)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

I found the article, it’s called ‘Whatever happened to – EMCAT’. This talks about the UK-designed EMALs that got canned.

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_837816)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

is that article that discussed stuff developed by GEC?

andy reeves
andy reeves (@guest_837774)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

sell POW to the frogs, get a mistral and a FREMM in exchange. that would be a good deal. then do the ark royal game on there and notQE.

Jim
Jim (@guest_837823)
1 month ago
Reply to  andy reeves

And where would you fit a EM catapult and arrestor gear on a mistral?

Angus
Angus (@guest_837643)
1 month ago
Reply to  Hugo

Ark Royal was little used compered to her sisters and went to be scrapped in a very good over all condition that could have gone on for many years if wanted. No one wanted the RN to have true Sea Power at the time due to interservice fighting that killed the Shar then the GR9.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_837740)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Ark Royal was pretty fresh out of refit too – double shame 🤔

andy reeves
andy reeves (@guest_837776)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

the yanks generally keep their ships longer than we do.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_837966)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Something tells me MOD is an acronym for Mad Orders Dept. Inter service rivalry always seems to focus on Naval Aviation.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_840507)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

usual incompetence all round.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_837757)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Still only slated to serve till 2016 if she hadn’t been cut tho, spares and orphaned machinery became greater and greater issues as the ships get older.

andy reeves
andy reeves (@guest_837772)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

we did have one, but some pillock decided it would be a good idea to let brazil have it.RIP Ocean.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_837845)
1 month ago
Reply to  andy reeves

👍

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_837955)
1 month ago
Reply to  andy reeves

and ark royal retired 5 years before it official due date😡😡😡😭

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_837596)
1 month ago

Here we go again! Gambit is a jet powered UAV that will require catapult launch and arrestor gear. If we are going to incur large costs to install these systems( with the weight limits set out in the 2021 RFI) why not increase the specifications to give us full CATOBAR capability?
Mojave can operate from the carrier as is, but whether it could provide AEW in succession to Merlin Crowsnest, I don’t know.
Given the state of the surface fleet, spending vast additional sums on carriers that we don’t really need would be madness. It won’t happen.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_837961)
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

shame that the impressive taranis drink was only an experimental project it looked a really interesting design.which would have been carrier suited.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_840509)
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

awesome waste of resources. it sh6 be spent on ships

Baker
Baker (@guest_837599)
1 month ago

Oh God here we go again. “should have been built with Cat’s and Traps” “Angled Decks” Nuclear powered to generate Electrickery for the EMALS, Teranis was cancelled too early, bring back the Gannets, so on so forth.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_837601)
1 month ago

This will surely require several years of trialling to “…inform future decisions….” before none are ordered.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_837838)
1 month ago

Ah, I was waiting.
This is all fantasy stuff as we know they’re unable to make a decision and commit to anything for fear of being wrong. Unless its a cut.
Just get the 2nd F35B buy ordered, get to 72 planes, keep Tyhpoon T1, or buy a few more.
Done.
Just under 200 fast jets is not to be sniffed at.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_837846)
1 month ago

Morning DM that sounds like a plan to me 👍

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_837860)
1 month ago

Yep. I can just imagine the ” inform future decisions ” type in the early thirties when the Spitfire first flew. A decade or so of trials to ” gain a deeper understanding of future air power ” before deliveries commence sometime in the early fifties…..

Meanwhile in Germany…….

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_837940)
1 month ago

😁👍

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_837604)
1 month ago

There is no doubt in my mind that both QEs will witness huge technological advances’ during their service lives. Unmanned is the way forward on so many military fronts and ship bourn unmanned systems is a given. Just what structural changes will occur may depend on costs and craft that can be deployed using existing infrastructure must be a priority. That said, visual changes to the two vessels over the coming decades will most probably be considerable and not necessarily shared upgrades marking a distinct difference in profile for each ship?

BobA
BobA (@guest_837616)
1 month ago

Pretty confident that this is still pie in the sky stuff.

Just look at the link to the original Project Ark Royal article embedded in this one. It had HMS PWLS being fitted with Arrestor Gear in 23/24 and trialling in 2025.

Unless something drastic has happened, I think that may be quite some way off.

Angus
Angus (@guest_837650)
1 month ago
Reply to  BobA

Not going to happen, no funds as such a change and would cost a fortune when the Fleet needs ships at sea right now.

simon alex
simon alex (@guest_837635)
1 month ago

Has to be STOVL drone matching F35b ability. Something will come along, there are several navies wanting this.

Angus
Angus (@guest_837647)
1 month ago

I think that great big ramp will have something to say about launching over the bow, turbulence that makes will make it go one way, into the drink.

MQ9 was launched over the ramp and would be ideal for taking a radar up aloft with good endurance, also will provide a reach for ASW too able to take ASW weapons and sonar buoys. Id go with that and a couple dozen so a Squadron apiece for each Carrier. Cheaper and would be in service tomorrow if want without screwing up the decks on the ships.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_837654)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

MQ9 can’t do AEW, it doesn’t have the power generation, but I agree with everything else you say. Having what is essentially a carrier borne maritime patrol aircraft would make sense in many ways, especially with a focus on the carriers as assets to NATO. Russia have no means of sending aircraft other than long range TU95s to the high north, but they do have a hell of a lot of submarines and corvette/frigates, all of which would need to be found and destroyed. A combination of Stingrays, sonobuoys, the surface scan radar and Spear 3 would allow engagement of… Read more »

Baker
Baker (@guest_837679)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Hello SB, I do sort of wonder just what a state the Russian Navy is in now, I can’t see that any real emphasis is being given to their ancient fleet of surface ships and sub surface boats at this time other than empty threats and political bluster. That’s not saying I doubt their threat but let’s face it, they are decades behind the west as witnessed in Ukraine.
NATO ships and Subs would quickly annihilate their entire inventory if things got bad.
It’s China and the other Despot led countries that would be a bit more tricky.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_837693)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

Hi Baker I understand what you mean about the Russian surface fleet, but their submarines are a different matter. They seem to have made an effort to catch up in terms of submarine design with the West (so would be harder to find quickly in a war) and all of their new boats carry VLS specifically for anti ship missiles. These would be fired from well outside the ASW cordon and detection range of a typical CSG and so carrier MPAs are needed to extend this distance. To me the focus on China is, at least for the RN, overstated.… Read more »

Baker
Baker (@guest_837705)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

As always, you do speak truths, You are one of just a few on here that I look to for facts and reasons. Deep 32 is another but he seems to have sunk without a trace.
Whale Island Zoo Keeper is borderline informative/Paranoid Schizophrenic delusional/Attention deficit disorder compromised yet some of his stuff is rather good. NL does make me laugh though.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_837711)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

Ha!
When I came on here about a year ago, I never thought for a second that I would be the “fact guy”
I am not yet out of school age, defence is just a hobby of mine related to engineering and I first commented here to ask questions. The reason I come across as knowledgeable is that I’m not above an afternoon googling the subjects of these articles.
For facts and actual, first hand knowledge, I recommend DaveyB, Gunbuster, ABCRodney and DM.

Jim
Jim (@guest_837825)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

They said the same about their air defence and S400 until it started being used against 20 year old western weapons that cut through it like butter.

Their submarines are likely just as s**t if not worse. Their latest SSK project is a joke and their “latest” SSN is 30 years in the making with two in the water.

I seriously doubt it’s a match for Astute or Virginia.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_838135)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

It doesn’t have to be a match in sub combat, this is what I was explaining
A lot of the recent subs (since 2000ish) are SSGNs. The doctrine is to fire AShMs from submerged hundreds of miles from an opposing CSG. Even with a noisy sub, nothing will detect you that far out and so there is little to no risk.
It only takes one missile to ruin your day and so being blasé about the risks is silly.
These drones could plug the holes in the current strategy and so force the Russians back to traditional submarine combat.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841328)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

or a upholder repurchased from the Canadians

Angus
Angus (@guest_837686)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Like most aircraft, power generation can be upgraded to meet the needs and there is always a external RAM air turbine to consider to give the additional boost using one of its many hardpoints. Simple solutions to give a real solution without braking the bank.

Yes ASW etc is certainly a real possible way forward and cheaper than using the limited Helo’s the Fleet has

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_837712)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

The solution I have heard offered would be to sling a diesel or GT electrical generator under one wing and the radar under the other.
That starts cutting down on endurance and gives limited arcs to the radar, but would work as an interim solution.
The main attraction of these MALE drones is in surface and subsurface patrols at long ranges.

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_837805)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

A RAM air turbine only generates drag and electricity, not thrust.
Sorry may have missed the point. Read this as assisting take off.

Last edited 1 month ago by FieldLander
Jon
Jon (@guest_837835)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

MQ-9B has a lot of lift if it’s allowed a decent run up. I don’t think an auxiliary power unit and two underslung AEW PODS are impossible on a STOL version.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_838136)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

True
The main issue (because the ramp helps with takeoff) is landing on with only wheel brakes and reverse thrust.
I suppose the best method of maximising fields of view would be a central power generation pod and two wing mounted, sideways looking AESA radars.

Jon
Jon (@guest_838609)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

I don’t think MQ-9B can do ramp take offs. It may not have the thrust and would need undercarriage modifications, adding yet more weight. Doing without the ramp shortens the usable runway on the QE class considerably. Discussions have been on the lines of adding sponsons and lengthening the angled runway rather than modifying the UAV for ramps. I agree braking will also be an issue and it’s probable that working both ends of the carrier separately would not be possible during Protector operations. I agree on the configuration, but it doesn’t look easy, whether the APU is mounted internally… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_838639)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Surely the force produced by a ramp takeoff is far less than that of a relatively rough landing? The STOL kit was originally designed for rough field ops, which have a much higher stress for the undercarriage than anything on a smooth carrier deck. Mojave took off before the ramp but that was just a demonstration flight, it used the same area as it landed. I don’t think it will be possible with any drone bot using arrestor gear to fly off and land on simultaneously. Hopefully the long duration of patrols of that kind and large fuel reserves will… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_838220)
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

ivan isn’t going to come out to play in the North Atlantic with any surface vessels. ivan doesn’t have the capability anymore. ivan builds corvettes/frigates of around 3500 tonnes because that’s its shipbuilding capability. They dont have the range or endurance for playing in the deep blue crinkly stuff anymore. Yes deployments to the ME happen buts thats not wartime its a jolly and there are friendly ports that they can use. Subs are an issue but again its doubtful they will play either. SOSUS never died it just changed its name and deployed better sensors. Keying NATO ASW air… Read more »

TonyB
TonyB (@guest_837649)
1 month ago

TWZ has an in-depth look at General Atomics pitch, which nicely complements George’s item above.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_837657)
1 month ago

I suspect there are many other things that would have a higher priority.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_837661)
1 month ago

I’d really like to see something capable of carrying stand off weapons too large for the f-35 bay

Baker
Baker (@guest_837681)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

Not too sure what you have in mind for a 65,000TN Carrier ? The UK certainly has nothing, Small Drones such as these are no good, B21 ?

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_837811)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

It was a purely hypothetical ‘something’.
That said, from the PAR key requirements: “Potential to enable operation of FW crewed aircraft (e.g. F/A-18E, F-35C, Rafale).”
So really the sky’s the limit on size and weight for a potential drone

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_837790)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

Well it seems that Lockheed Martin is open to Britain building the Mako missile even before the US or so it claims. May well be that the US is looking presently for higher end solutions as it’s priority so maybe LM is looking for traction elsewhere. but it certainly would be worth testing the water on such an offer. as Europe would probably be its natural home and exports a real possibility for F-35 operators and perhaps others potentially.

Last edited 1 month ago by Spyinthesky
Jim
Jim (@guest_837826)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Wow lucky us, now we can get stuck with LM multi billion dollar development bill for a gimmick that even the US doesn’t want.

I’m not sure what platform LM thinks we could fire it from. We would probably have to wait for F35 block VI some time in the 2070’s to get it on F35.

Angus
Angus (@guest_837839)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

Whats the issue with the wing hardpoints? Stealth not always needed and if flying low then the Earth hides you anyway. Low in and out is and has always been the option of choice until the present day, as gives defenders minimal time. F35B is expensive and once the ballon is up stealth not so critical as against mass of weapons.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_837851)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

I’m thinking of a spotter/shooter setup with a clean f-35 as the spotter and several dispersed attritable drones with stand off weapons as the shooter. That said f-35 could do that too if you’re not worried about mass, or losing mass.

I’d argue that being harder to spot and shoot is always useful, if you can make up the firepower elsewhere.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tomartyr
Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841323)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

more hunter killers get your shot in first.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841322)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

project ark royal? project pants more like, if the carriers had been designed better in the first place all of this s**t wouldn’t be necessary.

Last edited 1 month ago by Andy reeves
Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_837698)
1 month ago

flying rones are about as good as the carriers are good for

Baker
Baker (@guest_837708)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

“rones”, scones, phones, clowns, moans, tones, bones, cones, jones, hones, loans, zones ? I’m confused. 😂 sorry,it’s just my sense of humour, no offence intended ! 😱

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841312)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

none taken matey

Bazza
Bazza (@guest_837797)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

I agree, that’s why the spitfire is still the most dominant aircraft in the skies. I hate new things, old things are better!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841311)
1 month ago
Reply to  Bazza

agreed bring back steam power.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_837853)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

generally speaking an aircraft carrier is only as good as the aircraft it carriers, yes 👍

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841313)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

if they’ve been delivered

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841326)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

what air craft?

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841325)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

if ‘hank the yank’pulls his finger out and gets our aircraft built and delivered

Last edited 1 month ago by Andy reeves
Marked
Marked (@guest_837720)
1 month ago

Not if we are relying on our own never ending stream of tech demonstrator’s and proof of concepts…

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841327)
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

perhaps we can scrap another T23 to pay for a drone that can fly higher and see farther. I’m sure the ..melons that dreamt up the Proteus and Stirling castle stunts can come up with a hot air balloon that can do that. we’ll order it from Boeing at a extortionate price and then wait a few years for them to be delivered

Last edited 1 month ago by Andy reeves
Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_837731)
1 month ago

To counter hypersonic ship killers they need to fly some kind of airborne radar as far out as possible. To give the ships as much time as possible to react,

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_838255)
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

Not that simple.
Most missile systems need a ship borne radar to see the target to allow them to fire against it.
You then get into the realms of an AEW platform seeing targets passing them to a launch ship who uses that data to launch against without even detecting the missile.
As the RN only uses active homers things are a little easier as the homing is done by the missile and doesn’t require target illumination. The ship still needs to provide Data Link updates but that isn’t that difficult.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_838260)
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I would humbly suggest given the entirely different ball game intercepting hypersonic missiles will be. A different kill chain has to be developed.
By the time the ship see an incoming missile, it will be too late.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841349)
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

time for new point defense systems phalanx has be around for years

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841315)
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

cue the drone blah,blah,blah

Coll
Coll (@guest_837737)
1 month ago

I know the launcher will have a limit, but that ramp next to the launcher could restrict the drone’s wingspan. Maybe they could put the catapult on that angled deck.

Jon
Jon (@guest_837766)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

Someone who doesn’t care about reality has mocked up these pictures. I wouldn’t stress over the details. Sometimes the artists impessions take artistic licence a little too far.

Coll
Coll (@guest_837792)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

I understand it being an artist’s impression, but if you look at the Project Ark Royal plans the launcher is depicted next to the ramp. If I recall, the schematics of Project Ark Royal were unveiled at the ‘Combined Naval Event 2023’ conference.

Jon
Jon (@guest_837836)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

Most of the Ark Royal plans (including the ones shown in the article) had two catapults, a short one by the ramp for small drones, and the other capable of taking larger drones on the angled deck. The Gambit system was developed for the USAF and essentially follows the same kit conversion philosophy we’d have with STOL. So some of the USAF Gambit variants have wide wings and would be unsuitable for restricted width launches. As I understand it, Gambit 5 isn’t like the other variants in that it alters the core section for carrier operations. If so the question… Read more »

Angus
Angus (@guest_837841)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

The cost of adding the kit to both Ships (it was estimated at billions to convert them when it was aired in the past) will be way more than getting another couple squadrons of F35B’s. So not going to really happen. Still it keeps a few in fantasy jobs who have little practical know how.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_837847)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

That’s right if they want this and that then the bottom line is more money in the Defence pot which on here we all know 2.5% on defence is ridicules ,with Russia on a land grab and China flexing it’s muscles it should be at least 3%GDP . 🙄 🇬🇧

Jon
Jon (@guest_837850)
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Yes. That price was the lower risk option of going American. If we were to be thinking about this seriously (and I don’t think we are), I’d look at ressurecting EMKIT/EMCAT as a slow-burner project so we can have something cheaper as an alternative.

Coll
Coll (@guest_838044)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Yeah, I mentioned also before, but under the think defence article ‘What happened to EMKIT.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841320)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

project ark royal is bollocks, just like all the other flavour of the day fads the navy wastes money on cable sentries and motherships are warships a distant myth

Jon
Jon (@guest_838086)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

A visual estimate, relative to the F-35s, suggests there’s the better part of 14-15m width next to the ramp. For comparison, Ghost Bat has a wingspan of 7.5m. It might not be as restrictive as we thought.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_841317)
1 month ago
Reply to  Coll

project ark royal? utter bollocks demand for the u.k f 35 order to be delivered faster

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_837844)
1 month ago

This drone looks pretty chunky. I’m thinking why don’t they go for a full fat emals so they can launch actual aircraft as well like a Hawkeye AEW?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_837855)
1 month ago

OT, just seen the Chief of the British Army on our main News tonight saying that the UK needs to be prepared to fight a war against Russia and its friends in 3 years! That’s not long and maybe quite realistic, so things had better get a bloody move on. Ships, subs, planes, missiles, tanks, ammunition, everything will be needed in quantity and quality please. Hopefully this time line pressure will make some good things happen sooner. Maybe cause a rethink on the scrapping of the Typhoon T1, upgrade more Ch3 and get some serious GBAD and more artillery in… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Quentin D63
Marked
Marked (@guest_837867)
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

3 years might as well be tomorrow as far as getting modern large kit bought, just ain’t happening. The best we can do in that time is stockpile ammo and recruit enough people to man what we have. And not retire still useful kit we already have before it’s replacement arrives.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_837878)
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

Yes, he’s made this statement then he and others who are responsible for the UK’s defence forces to be ready. Don’t wait to be hit! Protect the assets you’ve got otherwise you won’t have assets to hit with! Common sense isn’t it? All this should seriously be focusing some minds. Ideally it’s best that there’s no major conflict at all and deterrence holds.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_837970)
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The Home Base Defence needs a much higher priority seeing what capabilities are being used against Ukraine. That would not cost the earth. Interesting to see which service wins the contest for responsibility.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_837895)
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

It’s the details elsewhere in his speech, or lack of, that were of greater interest.
Namely the idea for the army’s direction going forward, our doctrine re NATO, and the ARRC especially.

NomDeGuerre
NomDeGuerre (@guest_838160)
1 month ago

Couldn’t agree more. There’s some interesting stuff coming out of Whitehall at the moment to kick-start this review. And for once it actually seems to be aligning with itself. Pretty much every point CGS has been making was echoed by CDS at his RUSI speech yesterday. Increased lethality, increased deploy-ability, quicker reactiveness and ‘battalions of one-way attack drones’. Regardless of whatever direction the Army is spun, we should at least get increased support to joint enablement and some well needed heavy lift capacity. It’s worth a watch/read. Although I would swerve John Healey’s, a little bland and un-commital even for… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_838369)
1 month ago
Reply to  NomDeGuerre

Thanks NDG.

lordtemplar
lordtemplar (@guest_837861)
1 month ago

I’ll believe it when i see it. The RN did a study some years ago to add steam Catobar and the cost was around £1.5B and it never went any further.
Fast foward about 15-20 years, France ordered EMALS for their carrier and it cost them €1.5B for 1 ship from General Atomics. One can deduce that purchasing EMALS / AAG for 2 QE class carriers will cost about 3 billion, and then you need to add costs for redesign and work in dry dock to install which won’t be cheap.

Last edited 1 month ago by lordtemplar
David
David (@guest_837876)
1 month ago

possibly AWAS for the fleet could be an idea, served by a version of Airlander 10 Hybrid Airship, 70 knot (80 mph) speed, 4,000 mile range, 10 tonne lift max, could even be zero emission, keep Greta happy !

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_837894)
1 month ago

Very interesting speech yesterday from the CDS about the army, its future direction, and the place that ARRC may end up.
Albiet, without the details I do love.
Would be good if an article on this appears here so the details can be discussed properly.

NomDeGuerre
NomDeGuerre (@guest_838161)
1 month ago

… I should have read further down the page!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_838221)
1 month ago
Reply to  NomDeGuerre

No worries mate, I do that all the time.
ARRC as a SACEUR reserve? Makes sense to me.

Barry White
Barry White (@guest_837925)
1 month ago

Hi
Im not as switched on in these maters as most people on here but it seems that Cats are going to be very expensive to fit on the carriers
Years ago whilst at sea we used target drones (such as they were in those days)that used the JATO system to take off
Could that type of thing be looked at (yes i know a bigger system would be needed )
Then all that would be needed is the arrester gear
I know it sounds cheap but just a thought

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_838247)
1 month ago
Reply to  Barry White

Not as odd as you think, they have flown jet powered target drones from the carrier by craning the trailer catapult on board (no means of recovery). If the army made something similar you could always keep the catapult on deck in a corner, I suppose.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_838377)
1 month ago

Has a estimated cost been put on installing Cats and Traps on the QE carriers,
I know they were built with installation of CATBAR at some later date including space for additional generating power and equipment .